U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kim

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Bank v. Fox

    212 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    The court's statement that the case had been "languishing since 2010" does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any "specific conduct ... demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay" ( CPLR 205[a] [emphasis added]). As this Court has recently held, a "general pattern of delay" must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct (seeU.S. Bank N.A. v. Kim, 192 A.D.3d 612, 613, 146 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2021], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 932, 146 N.Y.S.3d 871, 169 N.E.3d 1235 [2021] [the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) because the order dismissing its prior action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), based on a failure to seek a default judgment within one year of the default, "did not include any findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay"]; see alsoHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Janvier, 187 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 133 N.Y.S.3d 596 [2d Dept. 2020] [same]; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Moomey–Stevens, 168 A.D.3d 1169, 1170–1171, 91 N.Y.S.3d 788 [3d Dept. 2019] [same]). In brief, a single data point does not a "general pattern" make.

  2. Concepcion v. Leesel Transp. Corp.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 31796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    With respect to the savings statute issue, the Court finds that the prior case was not dismissed on the merits and therefore plaintiff was entitled to bring a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a). The First Department has found that a party may utilize CPLR 205(a) even where a plaintiff's previous case was dismissed for taking more than four years to bring a motion for a default judgment (U.S. Bank N.A., Tr. to Bank of Am., N.A. v Kim, 192 A.D.3d 612 [1st Dept 2021], appeal dismissed sub nom. U.S. Bank N.A. v Kim, 37 N.Y.3d 932 [2021]). In Kim, a plaintiff's initial foreclosure action (brought in 2010) was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) for failure to take proceedings within a year of the borrower's default.